eeegnu

Because a poorly implemented chatbot using someone else's LLM API is comparable to what you can accomplish with 10^n rounds of inference in a clever way. Computers are useless without error correction, LLMs may be as well. That's not to say that LLMs will form their own goals, but that people in control of them will be welding dangerously capable agents.

Hmm, in theory what if I used a dedicated GPU just for the VM that was disabled on the host. I don't know the space of these exploits well enough to know if there's an obvious attack that still leaves the host open to.

I believe this opens up the host device to vulnerabilities if the VM gets infected: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/162122/gpu-pass...

This one? https://web.archive.org/web/20020926204023/http://www.bombhi...

I would guess that they did the calculations, but interpreted it as "5 nines after the decimal point", when it's really "5 nines in total".

Time to use an LLM to sandwich my actual domain name searches between thousands of other similar sounding ones. Let them pay for all of those.

I wish I still believed this.

Charging a small amount is more optimal since it mitigates API spam without having to set a low rate limit. It also ties your users to a financial id, which is (probably) harder to get in bulk for nefarious purposes than just requiring a phone number to sign up.

It seems your first attempt to post this was flagged because the domain name sounds like it'll act like a redirect, and the page itself only had an image with no elaboration and just the link to github.

Possibly related, discord is not loading anything for me right now.

It would be funny to place fake data behind the removable bars for tech savvy people to find.

It's always worth examining the other perspective, it makes for actual discussion. If I want to see everyone in agreeance with no room for these opinions I'll use reddit.

Looking through the source where the tests are conducted,

for (double x = 1; x < 1000000000; x += 0.5) {

      counter++;
      int64_t tmp;
      if (to_int64_simple(x, &tmp)) {
        sum += tmp;
      }

}

The fractional part is always mostly 0.5, or 0.10000... While that shouldn't really affect things, I think a proper test would sample randomly, though this runs into the problem of the random number generator itself influencing the time spent, so I can see the appeal for this method. Perhaps generating a random float array with N elements and calculating the results for x + arr[x%N] would accomplish this.

I've also found that in emails there's a surprisingly large number of people that think "yes" is a valid response to: "Should I do A or B"? They interpret the or like an interpreter and short circuit at A, rather than recognizing that this is asking which should be done.

Probably would be the same as playing against alpha zero without knowing and wondering how every good move you play seems to leave you worse off.

I think that's an interesting perspective, you're right that this is a post praising moderation (a form of censorship.) I don't find it dystopian/thoughtless however, because the outcome of this moderation philosophy is visibly better than the vast majority of other forums I've partaken in. The forums that were better were small, and did not scale as well as HN because moderation is very hard to get right. The better part of HN also isn't seeing more of what I agree with, but seeing different perspectives presented in a way that yield actual discussion.

Your right in principal, bad grammar effects us all, theirs allot we can do too keep content here peek quality.

I found this article[1] answered allot of the questions I was left with after reading the linked article.

> “What we normally do is put a satellite transmitter on any animal that we deploy instruments on. In this case, we didn’t, because we expected this (camera) just to be gone at sea for a couple of days,” said Lidgard in an interview Friday.

> “With hindsight, probably not a good idea,” he added with a laugh.

> The idea, he said, was to deploy the camera four or five times, each time removing it from the seal to get the data after a few days and reattaching it to continue the research.

> In this case, Lidgard said he thinks the seal was starting to go through the moulting process and was foraging for food when the camera fell from its back.

No video footage there either sadly.

[1] https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/10/08/lost-seal-mou...

When I do competitive programming, I celebrate the "one and done" moments where my first compile and test against the samples works, and then the submission too yields Answer Correct. Even for problems I'd consider hard I can semi reliably get this. But I find it much rarer for this to happen in my work, probably because I have to work with unfamiliar, often poorly (if that) documented code. But even with well written code, I don't have the same level of internal context juggling when making changes as I do with freshly written contest code, which I think is the key difference.

Just tried it out, really interesting to read post game: https://lichess.org/dKbbqymG/

I don't think this comment was accurate:

> 23. c4: "White tries to get his pawns moving. I am still thinking that I have to move my bishop, but that is too slow. I think white should have moved his king back to c3 to prevent my pawn from becoming a passer."

The idea behind moving the pawn was because black playing c4 would have instantly lost both pawns since the bishop has nowhere safe to go where it still defends c2 (Bh7 leading to g6 losing the piece.) I don't think the king could have made it to the c file in time to stop that.

> 34... Rxg4: "Now I can't stop him from advancing his pawn."

Is this meant to be speaking from whites perspective (since black just got the unopposed h file pawn.)

Interestingly only 10. O-O links with a move, I think it would be really helpful if they all linked to moves. Also i'm really excited for this kind of analysis! It would be really cool if request a computer analysis eventually generated such analyses trying to figure out each sides ideas.

Probably people flooding in to see if anyone knows why things are down. Even Google speed test was down, presumably from too many people testing if it's their internet that's at issue.

> R2 will provide 99.999999999% (eleven 9’s) of annual durability, which describes the likelihood of data loss. If you store 1,000,000 objects on R2, you can expect to lose one once every 100,000 years — the same level of durability as other major providers.

I've seen this kind of marketing allot from cloud providers, and it always makes me wonder. At that point the probability that you're going to lose your data gets dominated by the probability of a rogue employee deleting your data, or of 3 simultaneous natural disasters destroying every warehouse your data was replicated to, or most likely someone gaining malicious access and deleting a bunch of stuff. Those are a little harder to quantify though.

> The myth persists because coincidences will happen in high numbers at scale. If hundreds of millions of people are spending hours on social media each week, some number of them will see ads related to some conversation they had recently by pure random chance.

It's certainly more frequent than just by random chance, but by virtue of the fact that we say many things, and the things we will say can be predicted (at least to some extent), by our browsing history, which already is constantly being churned through however many ML algorithms to know what ads will be relevant to us. I'm also convinced location data is thrown in there too; after I recently started spending more time in a new area, I stared getting ads for one of the adult braces companies that I've only ever seen there a block away. In those cases there's a decent probability someone will mention it because it's new to them, only for the algorithms to also figure: 'this is probably the kind of person that would be interested in this, and they're nearby now!' It happens frequently enough to almost everyone I know that the random argument loses its credibility to me.